The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1887-06-16
IS SAM, JONES WROEG2
How Many Votes Will Tt Take to Garry
the Amendment ?

lere given:
ssThen it shall be the duty of the gen.
raj assembly to submit such proposed
or amendments to the peo-
Die in such manner and at such time as
he general assembly shall prescribe.
And if the people shall approve and rat
ty such amendment or amendments
~ a majority of all the citizens Of the
'tate voting for representatives voting
N their favor, such amendment or
shall become part of
the constition. wide State Constitu-
Iion, latter part of sec. OF art. II.
1t is not surprising that there
should be various interpretations OF
this language. Indeed, it seems
that it was penned, as are many OF
our statutes. for vagueness and OBJ
security. There were those, as was
shown when the question was up
before the legislature to fix time
for The election, who believed the
election should be simultaneous
with the legislative election and
therefore urged a postponement to
the legislative election in Novem-
Der, 1883. This view initiates di-
rectly with the language, which
says the election shall be held sat
such tine as the general assembly
shall prescribe" This view, there
fore, is untenable. Another inter
probation, and this was taken by
the members of the Legislature gen
orally aud seemed to be the accep-
ted one of the people-the same
given by the Rev. Sam. Jones in
Pulaski last week-that when the
election is held, and it may be at
any time, the vote must be com
pared with that given for members
of the legislature in November,
1886, and if the amendment shall
receive vote greater than one-hali
of that then given, it becomes rati-
Jed, otherwise it fails, though every
vote may be given for it. That is
to say, the aggregate vote given fol
members of the Legislature was
about $4,000 and if a major part
Of this vote, say 117,50I, should be
given for it, the amendment becomes
ratified, but if 117,500 are given
and this should be the entire vote,
the amendment fails. Should the
entire vote of the state be polled,
say 100000 votes, still l17,5Ol
would ratify though all the rest,
lS4, 999, might be given against it.
Surely such can not be the meaning
Of the constitution. Such IS di-
rectly repugnant to the great fun
iamental principle of our govern
ment, and of democratic and repub
iican governments, viz: that the
majority must rule. This would
allow the minority, and possibly q
small minority, to amend and even
make the organic law. Now | &C
knowledge there is some PLAUSIBLE
5y for the construction that the vote
should be controlled by some legis
Iative vote, but why the legisla-
tive vote Of 1856 any more than 'S4
80, 80, Or more especially the one
60 be given in '8S? And if the neg
ative vote is not to be considered
Why have but one ticket? In my
opinion "a majority of all the citizen:
of the state voting for representa-
tives means majority of those en-
titled to vote for representatives
and who vote. This is to show thai
! none others can vote at this election
cut such as are entitled to vote fol
representatives, and a majority c
chat vote-be it large or small
can and will ratify. If only $4,000
votes are polled majority for vii
ratlfy, but majority against vii
reject. The same as to full VOTE
say 100000 majority will rat
ify but less than majority kills it
While the language Of the con
stitution does not clearly show this
this view of the question is alto
gether as plausible as the other
and it certainly has for its support
reason and common sense. | con-
Tess until recently accepted tht
general view of this question.
earned recently-and not till thel
that the Hon. Ed. IL. Ewing, thar
whom there is probably no u.or'
profound thinker or jurist in Ten
nessee and but few better Englisl
scholars, and therefore he is wei
qualified to give an opinion, ha(
stated that q majority of the vot'
given would decide for or agains
1t. This would be sufficient thougl
The vote sho aid be ever so small
and majority would be require'
though the vote should be ever S
large. l don't know his argumen
0or the points he makes. | onl.
known his conclusion, viz: Tha
a majority vote will settle it. Tn
I'll | had heard of this opinion c
Judge Ewing | had accepted tb
view OF the question generally civ
en-, VIZ: that the last legislatly
vote should be taxed as a basis an
| If the amendment receive a vot
greater than one half of that it bt
comes. ratified, thought here might b
100000 votes polled; and it mustrt
ceive that number regardless of th
number given. But hearing of tbi
Interpretation l read the constitu
ton for myself and fully concu
with Judge Ewing, at least as
his conclusion. Indeed, there is n
other feasible view of the question
But | am told if my position is CO
rect, keep quiet or | will thro
cold water on the chances of th
amendment. 1t is better, it is SAT-
that the opposers should belieN
their remaining at home will cour
as much as gong to the polls an
voting against it. Now while
want the amendment to carry az d
expect to vote for it, it is the pee
pies matter and they should III
derstand the question and act a
cordlngly. 1t is better, and I'M
nitely better, that the amendmel
should fail If it is not backed an
sustained by the people. It's el
forcement is with the poop
! through their legislature and if
should carry by majority vote
will be worse than useless. A M
jority of the people must acquies'
! in it or it will not be enforced.
%